Tag Archives: gain something more than words

“Community is the fact that we work toward the same goal, that we accept our respective roles in order to reach it.

Values is the fact we trust each other.

And, culture?

Culture is as much about what we encourage as what we actually permit. That matters because most people don’t do what we tell them to. They do what we let them get away with.”

—-

Fredrick Backman

===============

“You don’t know what you can get away with until you try.”

—–

Colin Powell

=================

Well.

The relationship between secrets and culture and community is one which is fraught with contradictions, conflict and humanness.

I imagine this conflict is driven by the natural chafing between self-interest and community <I have called this community individualism & Enlightened Individualism in the past>.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

We talk a lot about community and team and all of that good stuff. And we talk about it with good intentions. The problem is that true community demands some sacrifice.

Therein lies our big secrets.

On occasion we decide self-interest is more important than sacrifice.

Uhm.

This is a version of ‘what you can get away with.’

That phrase sounds horribly horrible. It suggests nefarious type behavior. But the truth of it is most of us see what we can get away with on some very personal day-to-day less-than-nefarious type stuff.

We cut some corners.

We maybe don’t tell people how we truly feel <or who we truly are>.

We steal some post-it notes.

These are our little secrets.

We may even have some bigger personal secrets that we decide are just not things we want to share <these are not nefarious … just personal>.

Regardless.

For many of us … our behavior arcs toward what we can get away with. That doesn’t mean it is completely unethical, or some abhorrent behavior, just that while norms set a ‘median’ standard guideline Life is constantly suggesting ‘but this one time you can get away with doing this.”

The problem resides with the friction between culture & community and self.

What I mean by that is the stronger & more powerful the cultural community norm is the bigger your secret becomes if you avoid the norms.

This secret takes on exponential size if you start believing that the norms that are good for you are good … and the ones that don’t match up with what you believe is your self-interest are bad.

You only accept the existence of the formal and informal cultural norm structure that constitutes accepted community construct … only as long as that suits your purposes.

Your big secret, therefore, doesn’t have to do with your own behavior but rather in your non-belief ,if not overall disdain> for the community norms.

This leads me to hate.

Why hate?

When you decide to see what you can get away with you have to mentally divide community into “we” and “they.” And in doing so you make ‘we’ good <which suggests what you can get away with is on the side of good> and you make ‘they’ bad.

This is a simplistic tactic for attempting to carry the burden of a big secret.

Hate is simple.

Hate can be an incredibly powerful empowering emotion.

Why?

In this scenario, using hate, the world becomes much easier to understand and less confusing, in the scheme of things, if you divide everything into friends & enemies, good & evil, right & wrong and a basic we & they.

This helps us because the world is strewn with conflict. Not just physical war but of ideas, thoughts, beliefs and attitudes. Cultures, communities and classes are bombarded with conflict after conflict. And maybe because of the sheer amount of conflict one of the first things we do is pick sides. We choose a side to stand on because … well … it is easier. It is easier than thinking or, even more difficult, trying to hold parts of two ideas which appear in conflict in our heads at the same time.

And once we have chosen a side we then go out and seek some information, or ‘facts’, to confirm not only what we believe but the side we have chosen – this permits us to maintain the status quo and chug along with Life as ‘normal.’

Oh.

The last thing we do is demonize, or dehumanize, the other side. We diminish them. Make them, their thoughts & ideas, lesser than.

……. making “they” smaller ……..

I would suggest this all just makes you smaller as a person <carrying around a big secret>.

Big secrets make small people … yeah … unfortunately all of us become smaller with a big secret.

And this smallness is compounded by the unfortunate fact that you become even smaller when ‘we’ are the people who others HAVE to keep big secrets from … because they believe, and know, we cannot handle them <or don’t believe in them>.

All secrets carry a weight to them.

===

“To agree to keep a secret is to assume a burden.”

—

Sam Harris

===

In fact … I could argue that all knowledge is a burden. It carries a weight of responsibility with regard to what you do with it … how you act because you have it … as well as how you think about you, and others, with it.

Having accepted knowledge you have made an agreement with it. I tend to believe we don’t think about this. We accept knowledge as … well … maybe like income earned – disposable income in fact. We worked for it, we earned it and it is now ours to spend as we choose.

But knowledge is actually more like freedom. It is an unalienable right but it is also a privilege … and therefore one assumes a responsibility to it.

Uhm.

And with responsibility comes burden. Which almost sounds odd in that something with ‘free’ in it also carries such a heavy burden.

Maybe I should just suggest that nothing really comes for free … everything has something attached to it.

Knowledge?

Responsibility … the burden of responsibility. And that is a weight you carry … one which can be as light or as heavy as you make it. But. It is a weight nonetheless. One which you learn to carry well or carry poorly.

Knowledge tests our ability … and our character … with regard to how well we can carry this weight. It tests how strong we are .. once again … in ability an character.

Having said that <and most likely having a number of people feeling a little unconfutable thinking about knowledge that way>.

Secrets are a completely different level of a knowledge burden.

And secrets are tricky.

Some are thrust upon you … unwanted but yet yours nonetheless.

Some are gifted you … carefully shared by someone who believes the weight it carries is too much for themselves … alone.

Some are just yours … built by you and carried by you.

But regardless of how you assume the responsibility of a secret … it is also knowledge. And therefore it also carries a burden … a responsibility … and a weight.

I don’t have the scale to weigh them but my guess is that a knowledge secret exponentially weighs more than a traditional knowledge.

I also don’t have any research but I also tend to believe, just like extra physical weight, as soon as we start feeling the extra weight of a secret … we seek to shed it.

Therein lies the true test of character.

Therein lies how big secrets can make small people.

All knowledge tests you. Secrets test you even more.

Knowledge, and secrets, take a strength of self to carry its weight.

The weight of responsibility of having the knowledge, the weight of freedom knowledge typically gives us … and the weight of character that knowledge either makes you bigger or makes you smaller.

Whew.

That is a lot of extra weight we have accepted by taking on these secrets.

And this is where I bring in good … as in good people doing good things … as in good versus almost good.

That sometimes very thin line can make a massive difference in life. That sometimes very thin line can decide whether your secret makes you bigger or smaller.

Look.

If you are clever enough, even if you embrace community, you can get away with a shitload of stuff. But cleverness does not eliminate the fact you gain a bigger secret burden with every action.

And you know what?

The “community” knows we struggle with this a individuals. In fact it has even created some ‘auxiliary precautions’ to help us avoid unnecessary secrets.

Huh?

This is James Madison’s Federalist Paper #51 or “if men were angels” argument:

===========

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

“The world is not as simple as we like to make it out to be. The outlines are often vague and it’s the details that count.

Nothing is really truly black or white and bad can be a disguise for good or beauty … and vice versa without one necessarily excluding the other.

Someone can both love and betray the object of its love … without diminishing the reality of the true feelings and value.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting where all frontiers are artificial where at any moment everything can either end only to begin again … or finish suddenly forever … like an unexpected blow from an axe.

Where the only absolute, coherent, indisputable and definitive reality … is death. We have such little time when you look at Life … a tiny lightning flash between two eternal nights.

Everything has to do with everything else.

Life is a succession of events that link with each other whether we want them to or not.”

—–

Arturo Perez Revarte

==============

Vague sucks.

And, yet, I would argue the majority of people only really have some vague outline of how the world works, or how effective or ineffective a leader is, or even only have a vague outline of any specific relationship between cause & affect.

This vaguery exists because it takes a lot of work to parse the details, and the appropriate details, and the ‘right’ details to make the outlines less vague and more tangible.

Is this work valuable ? Sure.

Is this work necessary to increase some certainty in Life? Sure.

But the majority of people have shit to do <other than this type of work>. That is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is.

A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

What this means is that in this ‘vague outline’ people inevitably create a vague/semi solid outline belief. From there they look around on occasion and question that outline. The questions raised either support the vague outline or raise doubts and … well … more questions.

All the while this is happening more information barrages the vague outline. In this barrage is a confusing mix of real, fake and quasi truths. All these confusing things do in the people’s minds is, contrary to belief, not confuse but rather make the person more dismissive of the incoming confusion and steadier in whatever vague outline they may have constructed.

Once again.

This is neither good nor bad … it just is what it is.

A lot of pseudo intellectuals and smartish pundits bitch & moan and gnash their teeth over this but they would lead a significantly less stressful life if they just accepted it.

Ah.

But at some point the questions gain some gravitas. This can happen several ways but let me point out two:

The questions themselves coalesce into some easy to understand ‘blob’ from which people who have a vague outline decide … my vague outline is wrong <or sucks>. Let’s say that this is the point at which the doubts and questions begin to outweigh the beliefs that created the vague outline.

Someone weaves a narrative using the doubts & questions into a relatively succinct, believable and non-hyperbolic driven framing of an outline which people look at, scratch their heads, go “hmmmmmmmmm …” and decide this new vague outline will replace the one they had in place. Oh. To be clear. This narrative must not only use the doubts & questions to dissolve the current vague outline but must also offer an alternative vague outline <outlines need to be replaced not simply destroyed>.

The first never happens fast enough to people who just cannot understand how and why some people have decided to live with some vague outline <that just seems ‘not really a smart outline’ to them>.

The second is not as easy as it appears. It isn’t as easy because problems are rarely as clear as we would like them to be and a narrative never lives without the context of all the barrage of real, fake and quasi truths impacting and denting and solidifying a vague outline that already exists. Or someone weaves a great narrative to destroy but forgets to offer an alternative.

In other words … everything has to do with everything else.

I imagine I have two points today.

First.

We humans have come to accept a certain amount of uncertainty with regard to our lives and our decisions. This uncertainty is also built into the vague outlines we tend to construct for ourselves. What this means is that the construct of our beliefs and thoughts and ideas may be certain to us and, yet, its silhouette accommodates some uncertainty.

I began today by unequivocally stating that vague sucks. And I believe 99% of people would agree that it sucks. but in today’s world the majority of people have enough shit to do that they slot their thinking thoughts time. in one slot they place unequivocal certainty type thoughts. In another slot they place the “I will always be uncertain about this shit and thank God there is someone else at some higher pay grade than I who can be certain about it.” and, lastly, we slot all the shit in which we have formed some vague outline which accommodates a certain degree of uncertainty.

My point here is we tend to make this a binary discussion where the reality lies in a more complex mix of vagueness & clarity, certainty & uncertainty.

Second.

Certainty, in and of itself, has degrees … it is not a simple black or white binary.

People can have vague outlines AND have questions with regard to their outlines … and not want to ditch the outline. “How can you still believe that?” may be one of the most misguided and unenlightened questions that has ever existed. It completely misses the point in that it assumes ignorance, stupidity or some negative trait in order to hold on to some vague outline regardless of doubts.

A vague outline is a choice.

No more and no less.

We question choices all the time and, yet, remain with the original choice despite some fairly extensive doubts.

I say this because that said … it is silly to point out doubts and questions as a reason to ditch a vague outline. My easiest example is President Trump. His followers have a vague outline of what they like and believe about him. We scrutinize them for doubts and questions and when they share them we immediately pounce and suggest “then how can you still believe in your vague outline!?!” <usually said with a slight overall disbelief & wonder>.

Within their lives of doing shit that is important to them they created a vague outline of who and what Trump is, or isn’t, and … well … uncertainty was built into their certainty. The moment they will begin to disbelieve their vague outline is when the uncertainty overpowers the certainty. Until then … we should stop acting confused that someone believes what they believe.

Anyway.

I love the quote I opened with even though I hate vague. The truth is that we all live with some vague outlines albeit your vague outline may actually be one of my non-vague outlines, and vice versa. And when they are in conflict then … well … there is conflict.

All that said … while vague sucks there is a reason we do it … and this reason is not stupid, nor unenlightened nor ignorant.

It is just damn practical to have some vague outlines.

Life is an uncertain adventure in a diffuse landscape whose borders are constantly shifting.

Life is restless.

Our vague outlines need to accommodate some of its restlessness. Not recognizing that is either naive or foolish.

“Debate is great for sharpening the mind, but I worry that really skilled debaters might internalize the idea that the point of discussion and debate is victory, rather than truth. In debate, if you encounter a compelling counterargument, you just try to find a way around it.

But you should argue for truth, not for victory.

Really good debaters run the risk of ignoring valid counterarguments.”

Let me be clear … if you suck at debating, you will be a sucky contrarian.

If you cannot debate you simply are an opinionated person with a non-mainstream point of view sitting angry in some office or at some desk thinking everyone is just not smart enough, and as smart as you, because they just can’t see what you see.

I have never had a desire to be angry nor staring at my own non-mainstream point of views piling up on my desk unused.

Next.

I am a self-proclaimed contrarian and … well … contrarians use truth … a lot.

Let me be clear … if you suck at telling the truth, clearly & concisely & unequivocally, you will be a sucky contrarian.

Truth is at the core of being a successful contrarian. Contrarians, simply by offering a contrary thought, find themselves constantly on the defensive defending the thought. This happens even if you go on the offensive. This happens because … well … contrary ideas & thoughts feel a little less comfortable, less familiar and more risky therefore people will inherently want to pick it apart. There is where ‘false’ haunts a contrarian. One falsehood is not just one falsehood. One falsehood implies others are there only yet to be found. If you cannot be an unequivocal truth teller you are simply a peddler of possibilities … and, well, true contrarians thrive on making possibilities realities.

I have never had a desire to be angry nor staring at my own non-mainstream hopeful possibilities piling up on my desk unused.

All that said.

When I saw the quote I opened with I had to sit back a little and think … think about how, as a contrarian, debate is used or not used.

Many contrarians focus on what I would call ‘the bookends’ — what their idea/thinking is and the ultimate outcomes — and judge themselves on that <and far too often dismiss counter thinking offered that changes the contrary thought>.

It is quite possible we contrarians <as well as many other people> should focus on ‘how they play the game’ … or how they debate … because I frankly don’t give a shit what you preach nor whether you eventually benefit from what you preach as long as what you preach is grounded in integrity & fair play & truth, what you actually do and how you behave is grounded in integrity & fair play & truth and what you preach isn’t just preaching but rather a thought which inspires additional thinking <which means the original thought will most likely look pretty different at the outcome than it did at the onset>.

If you do it right … if you debate it right … then you, and the idea itself, will benefit in that if the idea & thinking gets adopted in some form or fashion you will have done so as an outcome of what you preached, what you debated and how you behaved during the debate.

That seems like a good thing.

But here is where the opening quote really made me think … contrarianism is like a drug. When you have a contrarian idea and it is actually a good idea <and not all contrarians can tell if their idea is actually a good idea when being contrary> you can get caught up in the debate. You can start getting what I sometimes call “horizon blindness.” Horizon blindness is when you are so focused on the end destination and getting to the end destination you treat almost anything said, and any objection, as simply an obstacle to getting to the horizon … possibly ignoring any of the value being offered within the debate.

Even the best contrarians can get horizon blindness. Suffice it to say … the best contrarians can be aware of what is at exactly the same time as where they want to be. it permits some ‘cooperative arguments’ which <a> help build a better idea at the conclusion and <b> some ownership within all involved at the conclusion.

Anyway.

Here is what I think about being a great contrarian <maybe this is my wish list of what I could be>.

Scrupulously fair.

Contrarians have to walk a fine line. They rarely are flippant with a contrarian idea therefore can be dogged in its defense. Yet, they must be fair to the idea, the beauty of thinking itself and what others think & say.

In fact … you have to almost relentlessly be fair to everything else around you … scrupulously fair as a matter of fact.

Not domineering with beliefs.

This is a fine line to a contrarian. Frankly, any contrarian idea cannot step lightly into the fray. If it does it gets suffocated by the familiar, the status quo & the easier path. But the key word in what I suggested is “beliefs.” Any contrarian idea is constructed with a number of beliefs. The truth is that all beliefs reserve the right to not only be challenged but also changed. Therefore, dominating with a belief, in the contrarian world, is just asking for trouble … in addition … it is the wrong thing to do if you truly want the best idea at the end.

Cooperative argumentative dialogue.

The Socratic method <Socratic debateis a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions>. Every truly good contrarian I have ever met has been a master at the ongoing cooperative argument. They have been adaptive in debate, flexible in the flow and adept at finding seemingly irrelevant factoids and making them relevant at the appropriate moment.

Thinking tutor.

I want to be careful here because this is not to suggest contrarians are better thinkers or smarter thinkers and that they, and only they, can be the professors of thinking. What I am suggesting is that contrarians, in general, do think differently and they see things slightly differently. This means when you do it right … when you debate well & fairly & cooperatively … other people seem to walk away thinking about things in a slightly different way.

Relentless truth teller

One lie, one half truth, one ‘truthful hyperbole … and the whole house of cards tumbles down. Great contrarians are great pivoters away from what they do not know. what I mean is that instead of offering a ‘lie’ <falsehood> when faced with not knowing something they typically place an “I don’t know” on the table and pivot to a “but here is what I do know” and place a truth on the table where the “I don’t know” used to be. Key to what I just shared is a slavish attachment to truth … even at the expense of an “I don’t know.” contrarians realize the game being played is chess and you will sacrifice a piece rather than imperil the entire board.

That’s it.

When I saw the quote I opened with I loved the nuance in the description of debate … and made me think that maybe we, in business, misuse the concept. we may really debate in business … and maybe we shouldn’t be debating. Maybe we should be arguing for truth, not for victory.

“Ninety percent of paid work is time-wasting crap. The world gets by on the other ten.”

―

John Derbyshire

We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism

================

Well.

How many times have we sat back and said “I can do that job”?

Now.

To be clear.

I am going to talk about this from a business-to-business perspective and not the corner of the bar-to-‘a job’ perspective. That because from the corner of the bar, after a couple of beers, any of us can do any job better than the person who is currently doing it.

This is an “I have been in the workplace, I feel like I have had some success and … well … shit … I can do that job” perspective.

OK … I am chuckling a little, c’mon, let’s face it, I don’t care who you are and where you have worked you have eyed what another person is doing and thought you could do it. At some point, if you have had some success, all jobs start having some commodity-like characteristics which tease you into believing shifting from one to another just isn’t that difficult.

Ok.

To be fair.

I have never lacked in business confidence. I do not believe there is a business problem that cannot be solved and I also believe <with some realistic pragmatic goggles on> that there is not a problem I cannot solve if I hunker down and get all the information I need. This can make me aggravating to work with on occasion because … well … I make no apologies for “how I may repair things”.

But that shouldn’t be confused with believing I can do any job.

Ok.

Yeah.

I admit.

I am certainly guilty at points in my career where I have certainly thought “I could do that job” over a wide array of responsibilities and unrelated industries.

Note. I rarely thought I could do it better … just that I could do it.

……….. my MBA at Wake Forest experience ………..

I would say that my MBA experience, a great experience with great professors at Wake Forest, encouraged me to think this way. It was a case study program which inherently encouraged thinking skills over black & white discipline skills.

I tend to believe a good MBA program insures you know enough about a specific discipline to be … well … dangerous if you overestimate your own knowledge but effective enough to be able to understand the discipline to apply it in a general management scope.

Now.

In general, I think this attitude, on the positive side, permits you to make the leaps you have to make to jump into new jobs, new responsibilities and new positions.

In general, I think this attitude, on the negative side, can make you overlook some skills other people have as well as … at its worst … can put you in positions in which you will fail in a spectacular fashion.

I imagine as someone gets promoted, as I did, every step up showed me that there was a shitload I didn’t know overall, as well as about the responsibilities of a specific job, but at the same time it also continuously reinforced that I could … well … “do that job.”

Success in business is a double edged sword.

Conversely.

………. what you know versus what you do not know ………

As someone gets promoted they also can see that some people got their jobs not because they necessarily had the experience or skills for the job but simply because they had the appearance they could do the job.

You watched as these people invested gobs of energy trying to “fake it until they actually make it” or, worse, they realized they were in over their heads and invested even more energy simply maintaining a facade of bullshit to hide their hollowness.

I would also note that given your experience on the last thing I just shared that also encourages someone to believe they could … well … “do that job.”

The higher I got and the broader my experiences, my sense of “I cannot really do that job” increased with regard toward … well … the jobs I really shouldn’t do. It didn’t diminish my sense of ability to handle increased responsibility it simply made me more reflective of other skill sets and the reality of certain jobs.

To be clear.

There is a certain group of people who never reach this realization … they tend to be either sociopaths or oblivious narcissists … but they do exist.

Anyway.

My real realization on this topic came when I reached a general management position <and did some consulting>.

It was there that I recognized jobs are like icebergs.

90% of a job you never see until you actually do the job. And to successfully do the part you don’t see needs a couple of things … beyond the obvious ‘I need to be competent with regard to the specific skill itself’ aspect:

Attitude alignment

This attitude goes way beyond the simplistic “I can do the job.”

This attitude is more with regard to what you are actually good at.

As I have stated before I am more a renovator than a builder. That is a mindset. My attitude is just put me in a room with all the puzzle pieces and I can rearrange them, maybe polish off a couple, maybe smooth out some edges that no longer fit well … and put a different puzzle together that works better than the one that exists.

And then there are people who say ‘I envision a puzzle and build the pieces.”

Those are two different attitudes that, certainly, have some overlap but also, certainly, drive a different type of style and ability to succeed in one type of job versus another type of job. I believe many people are successful in their jobs, and new jobs, because they have the proper insight into themselves and position themselves well to take advantage of this insight.

I would also add that a leader who can see within a person’s ‘skill set’ to recognize this attitude will also be the type who can hire incredibly effectively.

Not all leaders and hirers can. some simply see the façade and surface abilities and believe they are easily transferable and … well … hire them believing anyone can do the job if they have that appearance of a type of surface skill set.

The less-than-obvious skill set

… example of under the radar understanding (Juran Institute) …

Each skill, each specialty, has layers to its depth & breadth. Let’s say this is the “art” of the skill <I sometimes refer to it as “the shadow of your skill”>.

When you are a junior person you are demanded day in and day out to craft your pragmatic ‘non-artistic’ skills. You learn how to screw screws into holes efficiently and hammer nails into their proper places effectively.

As you gain seniority you are demanded to start incorporating the art aspects of your craft. I like to explain this as you have to learn to be more of an architect of your department, skill and specialty. By the way … not everyone can do his and not every department head is good at this and it tends to start filtering out those who move on to the next level … general management.

And if you move up even more into general management you are demanded to gain some skills in the “art” of combining all the skills into the overall progress of a company beyond the simplistic “are each department doing their fucking job.”

In general the biggest difference between thinking you can do a job and actually being able to do the job is your less than obvious skill set. For example … I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in a conference room with a CFO who has displayed a skill set that … well … made me think “shit, this company is lucky to have them” not because they knew all the accounting mumbo jumbo but because they knew how to wield account skills in ways that the company benefited beyond accounting.

Pick your C-level title and I would say the same thing.

At the corner of the bar you have no clue whether you have this less than obvious skill set and if you actually have the experience you may only have a sense of whether this skill set exists. This is an intangible, however, 90% of the time this intangible arises from some relevant experience <maybe not within that specific discipline but a discipline nonetheless> … so your experience does matter.

So.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, we have a president who believes anyone can do any job and keeps hiring people who may be smart <and may not be … because I, frankly, question whether the President is smart> for positions they have no or little qualifications for that position.

I decided to write about this today because, frankly, as a business guy I know you cannot do a job simply because you say “I can do that job” and that experience really does matter and that simply because you believe something … <sigh> … does not make it so.

I will say that I have learned this lesson the hard way and it permits me to be able to call a bullshitter a bullshitter and to be able to point out that some roles & responsibilities dictate at least some relevant experience in order to be effective & efficient.

Just because you think you can “do that job” does not mean you can actually “do that job.” It takes some self-awareness to know that.

The lack of self-awareness has a ripple effect.

In a bar your lack of self-awareness can create a range of responses – some chuckles, out right laughter of disbelief and maybe even some aggravation if it inches into what some of the people actually do sitting at the table.

In a business your lack of self-awareness can create … well … some real business repercussions. Not only may you be out of your depth but you may actually start making some poor hires who are also out of their depth and … well … that kind of shit gathers negative momentum <down the slippery slope of less-than-competent results>.

In business you get fired for that shit.

In a presidency your lack of self-awareness can create some real country repercussions – and we are seeing some of that lack of effectiveness now.

Most industries once they have a fair number of competitors is more like a 7 lane superhighway where everyone is driving in the same direction within the same guard rails.

Not everyone will like thinking that but the truth is that most businesses have smart people who see the same information and do all the necessary research with people who are likely, and not likely, to buy whatever it is they are selling and therefore strategies are in the same realm and everyone is pretty much competing in the same arena.

This means a couple of things.

Everyone is speeding toward the same destination.

If something is obvious to you, it is most likely obvious to them.

What all of this means is you have to move but most moves have to be done artfully.

So maybe despite the fact I balk at the whole ‘zig when they zig’ and ‘unexpected’ anything in business gives me heartburn it is possible I could discuss the art of the unexpected move.

I call it “art” because unpredictability as normal behavior is bad. No one likes someone who is unpredictable 100% of the time and organizations <alignment, operations and ‘day to day doing’> tend to respond poorly to unpredictability.

In my highway metaphor unpredictability most likely means either <a> a crash or <b> slowing down and you get passed or <c> you are now on a completely different road than all the other competitors speeding toward sales, & customers.

As for predictable?

Yikes. Boring. Lack of creativity. Bad <in a different way> … let’s just call predictable “lack of any art.”

In my highway metaphor this most likely means you are cruising in one of the right lanes, the slower lanes, and people are passing you all the frickin’ time.

This suggests making a move in your industry take more art and artfulness to navigate the path you desire or take advantage of the opportunity that may open.

This also suggests, in the business world, you sit up and pay attention just with a little more focus when someone pulls out the “maybe we should zig when they zag” tritism. You do so mostly because anyone who says that who is not on a football field most likely has their head up their ass <but want to say something catchy in a meeting to be noticed>.

I say that, again, because most time in a business industry companies are going in a direction for a reason … that is where the sales are. So ‘zigging’ when everyone else ‘zags’ more than likely means they are heading toward sales and you are not <but you can always say you zigged when they zagged>.

Ok.

Now.

If you want to tie ‘unexpected move’ to survival … well … that is a different story.

Survival does have a nasty habit of forcing some unexpected maneuvering. Ok. Maybe out of desperation the predictable in us decides that maybe being ‘unexpected’ may actually be called for.

I would suggest that if you find yourself in desperate times rarely is anything artful in that moment.

But I would suggest that in a desperate survival mode I can offer tow lists you should write up on some big board in some big conference room and make sure you discuss.

There are basically 4 basic responses to a threat <or opportunity I imagine>:

Fight

Flee

Deceive

Submit

Any move you choose to make will be derived from one of these four spaces.

Choose wisely.

Once you have chosen <wisely> effectiveness in a survival fight basically comes down to 4 things <in the order of importance>:

aggression and willingness to hurt your competition

willingness to get hurt yourself

skill and knowledge

strength and power

Some may haggle with my order but the top two will dictate your success regardless of how you stack the last two.

And of the last two is would suggest most of the time knowing what to do is more important than brute strength.

Choose wisely <but always choose the first two or you will get crushed>.

I offer these two lists because when anyone suggests zigging when someone zags I bring these out.

Shit.

I bring these two lists out almost any time a business wants to talk about effectively competing in an industry.

Why?

Because nothing really matters if you do not figure out these two lists.

Why?

Going back to what I said earlier … advantages are temporary and the other guys/gals you are competing against are as smart as you are.

You don’t zig just for the sake of zigging <that is wasted organizational energy> and if you do have to take an unexpected move it is most typically a response to something in the situation.

While we like to talk about zigging and zagging the reality comes back to the highway. You have to move forward and keep moving forward <or get run over>.

The only zigging anyone should ever talk about is either moving into another lane to pass someone or another lane to let someone pass you or change lanes to avoid a crash.

================

“Desperation is the raw material of drastic change.

Only those who can leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape.

—-

William S. Burroughs

==============

Unexpected moves just to do something unexpected is … well … stupid.

It is in the same category as change for change sake.

It is in the same category as zigging when they zag.

Now.

Unexpected moves made in the search for something incredible waiting to be known <some desired destination>? Well … yeah … that isn’t stupid.

===========

“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”

—-

Carl Sagan

===========

……………. zig zag mistake …………….

Unexpected moves made to survive on the competition highway? That isn’t stupid.

Unexpected moves made to veer through a window of opportunity that arises? That isn’t stupid.

But zig when they zag? C’mon. That’s just stupid.

It is stupid because more likely than not it just means you will have not left the comeptition behind but rather just left the competition.

“I had,” he said, “come to an entirely erroneous conclusion, my dear Watson, how dangerous it always is to reason from insufficient data.”

–

Sherlock Holmes

<The Adventure of the Speckled Band>

================

“When we get better understanding or the facts or evidence don’t agree with the theory we must change the theory and change course.””

–

Sherlock Holmes

============

“… when you hear hoof beats behind you don’t expect a zebra.”

–

proverb

===================

So.

“I believe”may be two of the most dreaded word you can hear in today’s world.

Those two words may be this century’s version of throwing down a gauntlet or challenging someone to a duel.

“I believe” has been bastardized in today’s world to actually mean “I know” <but people have convinced themselves if they soften it with ‘I believe’ people will think they are more open to listening and true discussion>.

Facts matter. And they matter a shitload not only with truth but in the battle between I know and I believe.

The problem is that while facts are facts … two facts can coexist in the pursuit of “I know.”

Shit.

The truth is that … well … truth , the unequivocal kind, is most likely borne of let’s say 8 facts <I made that number up> coexisting … which when arranged into a pattern make up an unequivocal truth.

This means unequivocal truth … or let’s call it good solid “I know” is made up of a puzzle of facts … not just one fact or even two.

The practice of Truth is actually a profession of facts.

Using legalese for binding of contracts … by means of facts, truths are created and beliefs come into existence. Yet, in spite of all good intentions, the meanings of individual facts are not always clear and unequivocal. They may be capable of being understood in more ways than one, they may be doubtful or uncertain, and they may lend themselves to various interpretations by different individuals.

Following that thought … this means, when differences in understanding are not resolvable, divides in “beliefs” occur and dysfunction, in terms of lack of progress, occurs.

Once again, in legal terms, this is called “ambiguity.”

Paradoxically enough, the word ambiguity itself has more than one interpretation.

The general meaning has to do with how things are said, the words that are used, by someone and how those words are understood.

Ambiguity occurs where the two are not in alignment. The lack of alignment actually springs back upon the facts themselves in a vicious way — the fact itself comes into doubt.

Sigh.

But facts are facts. The problem isn’t about the fact but rather most truths are more complex than one fact. Unequivocal truth is grounded in … well … 8 facts <once again, I picked 8 out of the air but you get the point>.

This problem gets compounded by how people elect to actually use facts.

Using my 8 let me tell you what I mean. The expert, the most knowledgeable, will stack up the 8 facts from top to bottom in order of priority … but all relevant to making and truth unequivocal.

Then we, the non-experts, get in the game.

Some of us use the highest priority fact … and that is all.

Some grab the facts we want in the order we want and create the truth we want.

Some may actually use the 8 but decided to prioritize them in a different order.

All are using facts. Most are using them improperly or in an incomplete way. And, inevitably, 90%+ end up with an “I believe” and not an “I know” stand.

I know. I know. We all wish truth could be easier and, in fact, many people flippantly suggest truth is simple <or simpler than we make it out to be>.

Here is what I know about that. Using the thought I used upfront in this piece “… when you hear hoof beats behind you don’t expect a zebra.”

Well.

An expert, maybe a horse trainer, could hear the hoof beats and tell you with 95% confidence the breed, the weight and the type of horse coming up behind you. The dreamer will suggest it could be a unicorn. The pragmatic will narrow it down to a horse, zebra, antelope or some 4 hoofed animal.

Truth is less than simple and more in need of facts than we like to admit.

Yes.

The trouble with unequivocal truth is that it usually takes ‘one more step than you think’ to get there. Unfortunately, the truth about this is most of us don’t make it there.

We stop short.

And I tend to believe most of us know we are stopping short. We like the facts that we have but we, at the same time, know there are most likely some more out there that could be useful. We have 3 or 4 and decide the remaining 4 or 5 are just not that necessary. I guess we bank on the fact if we stop short we have at least grabbed the top 3 or 4 most important facts in an unequivocal truth.

Yikes.

Dangerous thought.

It’s dangerous in believing we have the most important ones of the ones we decided is enough but possibly even more dangerous is that we confuse an unequivocal truth for a simple “I believe” thought.

It is dangerous because “I believes” tend to reside in the negative space. Huh? If you only snag 4 of the 8 necessary facts the debate can never be resolved as the back & forth ends up in the blank spaces around the discussion. Truth is constructed more often by what was not found than what was found <look at what I didn’t point out versus what I did point out> – that is negative space truth.

Uhm.

That is not unequivocal truth.

In fact … it poisons the unequivocal truths in a misdirection of specious comparisons.

I would suggest that more of us should pay attention to negative space.

Why?

Negative space is usually indicative that a fact is missing. 99% of negative space can be filled with a fact <if only we looked hard enough for it>.

All that said.

Truth is the axis munid … the dead center of the earth.

=============

“the person who pretends to not see the truth is committing something much worse than a mortal sin, which can only ruin one’s soul – but instead committing us all to lifetimes of pain. The truth is not just something we bring to light to amuse ourselves; the truth is the axis munid, the dead center of the earth.

When it’s out of place nothing is right; everyone is in the wrong place; no light can penetrate.

Happiness evades us and we spread pain and misery wherever we go.

Each person, above all others, has an obligation to recognize the truth and stand by it.”

—–

Jacque Silette

================

I believe, no, I know the world would be a better place if more of us took that thought seriously. Because if we did than maybe we wouldn’t stop short of the unequivocal truth destination. Maybe we wouldn’t settle for an “I believe” thought and confuse it with a real “I know” thought. And maybe if we did there would be less discussion of alternative facts and more discussion about unequivocal truths on which we could center ourselves on.

“I had,” he said, “come to an entirely erroneous conclusion, my dear Watson, how dangerous it always is to reason from insufficient data.”

Geez.

If Sherlock Holmes says that sure as shit more of us should be saying it <and I don’t think we are>.

We just have to want to get there and not be satisfied by stopping short and feeling good about the facts we gathered … short of the ones we need to reach unequivocal. I don’t know that 8 facts create an unequivocal truth is the right formula but I sure as shit believe it is on the right path to getting there.

“You are a worm who thought himself a serpent just because you slither.

But your power was not real, Pliny.

It was all a dream. Time now to wake.”

—–

Pierce Brown

=============

So.

I would guess that most of us have run across a slitherer in business <let alone Life>.

A business slitherer?

Yeah.

One of those people who seem to slither in and around and as close to the edge of what is legal, ethical or right but never seems to cross any particular line far enough that someone can say unequivocally they have done something criminally wrong.

A slitherer slithers through all the same things most of us in business and in life do but does it in a way that seems corrupt <although it may not be>, seems illegal <although it may not be>, seems unethical <although it may not be> and seems inappropriate <although it may not be too everyone>.

That is the characteristic of one who slithers through Life.

—–

“seems.”

——-

“Seems” taints everything they do and, well, everything we do. A slitherer figures out a way to be held to a slightly different standard which ‘seems’ wrong but no one can point to any real specific criminally wrong behavior.

And it always helps to have someone defend you and somehow the one who slithers almost always has supporters. Those supporters mostly rally around the quasi-indefensible behavior because a slitherer is a proven survivor. And, yes, in a world in which surviving attrition may actually be a key to success … a persistent survivor can be viewed as an attractive ship to tie your line to <even if it is a ship of dubious lineage>.

But maybe the worst thing about someone who slithers their way to whatever success they gain is the team that ends up surrounding them.

Although I am no real prize for any boss … I would never work for a slitherer – my ethical and moral compass steers me too far away from any “seems wrong” behavior to make a position like that viable for me — or, I imagine, for a slitherer boss.

=============

“Round and round they went with their snakes, snakily…”

―

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

============================

My point on that is slitherers seek slitherers. It is a weird type of loyalty. It isn’t really loyalty to the person it is more loyalty to the fact you can behave in a way that ‘seems’ inappropriate on occasion but ‘seems’ okay to your boss <if not even applauded>.

Sigh.

That said.

We do not fire people for being seemingly unethical behavior or seemingly clueless behavior or seemingly inappropriate behavior. Appearance of behavior just makes people feel uncomfortable but it is typically not a fireable offense … it is just offensive.

And, yet, a slitherer thrives in the seemingly offensive behavior. They thrive because as their seeming behavior shrinks them in some ways it also grows their ability to slither around the edges of true illegal, true criminal, true unethical to do what they want to do the way they want to do it.

To be clear.

A good day for a slitherer is different than a good day for most of the rest of us.

Good to them is a “win”, or some version of successful outcome> done ‘their way’ of which no one can point to any specific wrong doing or completely unethical behavior <which, to them, is a type of success in and of itself>. Their ‘good win’ doesn’t have to actually contain any of what most of us would consider ‘good’ to be considered success.

To be clear.

Most good organizations foster a culture which tends to expel slitherers. Good cultures which foster moral & ethical behavior tend to avoid slithering close to any lines and therefore tend to treat slitherers as a virus to the organization itself.

I do worry, on occasion, that the good slitherers <which is actually an oxymoron> survive in any organization and are constantly trying to infect the organization itself <and, given the right circumstances, actually can take over an organization>.

I wrote this today because it has been sitting in my draft folder for a long time as an organizational behavior business piece … and now I can point out that our president is a slitherer.

He slithers through all the same things most of us in business and in life do but he does it in a way that seems corrupt <although it may not be>, seems illegal <although it may not be>, seems unethical <although it may not be> and seems inappropriate <although it may not be too everyone>.

Just watch. Trump will slither his way in and out of any seemingly illegal, corrupt, unethical event he places himself in. That is what a good slitherer does. And, yes, good slitherer is an oxymoron … but in a way President trump is also.

“And the nights, bigger than imagining: black and gusty and enormous, disordered and wild with stars.”

—–

Donna Tartt

===============

“This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.”

―

T.S. Eliot

==========

Well.

Despite the fact most nights remain the same amount of hours, minutes and seconds day to day a sleepless night can often look bigger than imagined. I have found that sleepless nights are less about restless minds and more about capacity in a squeezed space.

Huh?

Let me tackle squeezed first.

In general the world is a pretty vast place and our lives can seem fairly inconsequential. The good news about this is that within all that vastness there is a lot of room to let some of the more horrible or horribly mundane crap just slip by.

The bad news occurs when all of a sudden Life, and the world, shrinks and you feel squeezed. And this can happen a lot easier than one may think.

Ponder what I am going to say as “the big squeeze.”

Everyday everyone faces some naturally occurring ‘shrinking’ aspects which in and of themselves can’t shrink your Life enough to matter. Let’s just say this is the daily grind of work, chores and family & Life commitments. Some things go well and some things don’t.

And then, of course, there will be a day or two where the things that “don’t” significantly outnumber the things that “do.” because this is day to day shit I view this as getting squeezed from the sides. They kind of suffocate you a little.

But set that aside for a moment.

And then there will be some days where you have that ad hoc shit you have to plan to get done … the faucet is dripping, the car engine light is on, someone hit the mailbox, crap like that. 95% of the time this kind of shit never goes as planned. It takes too long or it doesn’t get done right the first time or … well … suffice it to say … the easy stuff never gets done as easily as you would want.

And then, of course, there will be a day or two where the things that never get done as easily as you want actually end up just not going right. This is stupid little shit … but maybe think about it as maybe getting squeezed from underneath – an unexpected aggravating shift on the ground below you.

But set that aside for a moment.

And then there will be some days where you turn on the TV or maybe scan the internet news breaks and … well … some shit has hit the fan. Your country has made some monumental decision that seems to shift its place in the world.

Some nutjob terrorist has committed some heinous act to innocent people.

Some “thing” happens that feel like a shift in the bedrock of ‘what is.’ It may not directly affect you but you sense that it is a monumental thing which will most likely affect you <even though you aren’t sure how yet>. This is big shit … this just makes you feel a little like the weight of the world has gotten a little heavier and the world as you have known it has become a little murkier. You are getting squeezed from above.

But set that aside for a moment.

Now.

I will now get to capacity.

Let’s assume on one day all there of things happen … you get squeezed all on one day. Oddly, this becomes a test of your capacity <which implies largeness>. And, yes, maybe it is about largeness. As in how large you can remain as you get squeezed.

Some nights it isn’t easy to not get suffocated.

Other nights you find your capacity and push back a little.

Most nights you find just enough largeness to not get … well … too little.

But the nights in which all three aspects I outlined squeezed you I would suggest … well … the word ‘forlorn’ comes to mind.

====================

“Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.”

―

J.R.R. Tolkien

=============

I use forlorn because I associate it with capacity as I am discussing it today.

Forlorn has a sense of shrinking to it in that the good in Life seems to shrink and that which is bad seems to grow and you are left with that wretched forlorn feeling which dogs you throughout a sleepless night. Forlorn seems like it is more appropriate than lonely or lonesome in that it specifically embraces a senses of wretchedness and desertion or abandonment … in my mind … ‘despairing of the arrival of a friend … in this case … a friend called Hope.”

To me … all of what I just shared with regard to squeezing and capacity captures the essence of the worst of the worst sleepless nights.

And, if I were a betting man, I would bet we have all had a few of these.

Ok.

Here is what I know.

Most of us get through these nights. Despite the vast emptiness of a night, more vast than we imagined it should be, we cast about among the chaos of the stars and find some light.

I like to think of it as we clamber through the clouds and exist.

===============

“I will clamber through the clouds and exist.”

—-

John Keats

==============

And the outcome of most of these nights, in addition to being tired, is out of the gauntlet of forlornness we seem to come out with a degree of hope.

Hope for a better day <at minimum> and maybe Hope for something better <at maximum>.

In other words, out of the bigness which seems to squeeze us if but for a moment we rummage through a sleepless night … one black and gusty and enormous, disordered and wild with stars … and come out a little less black, a little more calm, a little more ordered and a little more focused on some star.

A boss is interested in himself or herself, a leader is interested in the group.”

—–

Russell H. Ewing

===============

Well.

This is not about threatening employees about making mistakes <i.e., ”you are gonna get fired if you fuck this up”> but rather threatening employees who are exhibiting behavior that isn’t what you want from them.

This is also less a thought about managing individuals but more about managing a culture and groups of individuals – exploring systemic behavior issues.

Now.

I have to tell you.

Having managed a shitload of people there has certainly been some point where I wanted to threaten my employees if not just strangle them <and I am sure the feeling was mutual on occasion>.

Most of us just take a deep breath. Maybe close the door of their office and throw something. And then calm down enough to realize that most employees’ actions & behaviors are derivative of our own leadership.

As a corollary to that thought … if the actions & behaviors reflect a more systemic issue and not just some random individuals, well, you knowit is reflective of your own leadership <or lack of leadership>.

Ah … “most of us.” Well. Not “all of us.”

Management by fear is the go-to tactic of the old generation of business leaders.

They were also the ‘benevolent dictators’ <sort of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Men of Hitlers> as well as the dickheads who treated everyone like shit except the ones who did exactly what they were told to do.

Once again, about the only business people who believe in this type of management are <1> those who have never run a larger organization which demands cultural alignment for effectiveness, <2> managers over the age of 65 — mostly white ones, <3> weak leaders, or <4> narcissistic arrogant dickheads.

===========

“I suppose that leadership at one time meant muscle; but today it means getting along with people.

–

Indira Gandhi

============

Threatening employees with forced confidentiality agreements, law suits, sweeping statements of firing a shitload of people, and even “you are either with me or against me” type threats is not only stupid but it is less than effective.

That doesn’t encourage the best behavior, which is self-motivated, but rather all this does is create ‘forced behavior.’ Now. I am now behavior expert but even I know if I am forcing a certain type of behavior and , ultimately, that behavior is never absorbed as ‘self-affirmation of what I believe an like” … well … the first chance an employee gets to ‘unforce themselves’ they are gonna do it.

Here is what most of the good leaders know.

You can never, and I mean never, absolve yourself of the behaviors of your employees. You are either complicit or encouraged or simply an enabler.

You are, whether you like it or not, responsible for your employee’s actions.

What does that mean?

If they do things that piss you off you, most likely, have pissed them off.

If they show you little respect, you, most likely, have shown them little respect.

If they show you lack of loyalty, you, most likely, have not earned their loyalty or shown behavior that deserves loyalty.

If you do not recognize anything I just wrote as truth, you, most likely, just threaten your employees every time they do something you don’t like.

Look.

I have absolutely talked to an individual employee about their expense reports.

I have absolutely spoken to an individual employee about their behavior in the office.

I have absolutely sat down with an individual employee about what they should, or should not, be saying to people outside the office.

But, more importantly, I talk with the accounting department, the HR department and department heads to find out about what the organization is systemically doing with their expense reports, behavior in the office and talking outside the office.

I don’t think I was a particularly great leader but even I knew that systemic behavioral issues were my issues — not their issues.

I also understand that threatening employees, or even the trite ‘carrot & stick’ thinking, was ineffective if you wanted to build a culture where individual employees didn’t cheat on their expense reports, didn’t do stupid shit in the office and didn’t say the wrong things about the company outside the office.

A leader knows threats are stupid if you have any desire to build a long term culture. You set expectations, provide a vision that people can be proud of and the reward is not anything individual monetarily or even ‘keeping your job’ but rather the employee looks around and sees solidarity – the prize is being part of a team aligned on an objective.

Some leaders don’t see that. All they see is bad behavior and offer threats to seal the cracks in the system. All that does is mask the problem not solve the problem. All that solves systemic organizational bad behavior is good leadership — not threats.

Fear, despite what some may suggest, is not a particularly great motivator in business.

Knowledge of Botany: Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening.

Knowledge of Geology: Practical but limited. Tells at a glance different soils from each other. After walks has shown me splashes upon his trousers, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them.

Knowledge of Chemistry: Profound.

Knowledge of Anatomy: Accurate but unsystematic.

Knowledge of Sensational Literature: Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century.

Plays the violin well.

Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman.

Has a good practical knowledge of British law.”

―

Arthur Conan Doyle <A Study in Scarlet>

==================

So.

I am not sure if it is that I am of an age where my experiences have become varied enough that I chafe on being slotted in some form of ‘what you do’ or if I am of an age where many of the people I know get frustrated that they are demanded to define themselves, careerwise, in some simplistic way.

All that said.

I found myself in an odd alternative universe writing a core “here is why I have created this site and initiative” for someone I respect … and it was written for him but easily expressed my own situation.

After I sent him what I had scribbled I went back and I replaced his field with mine and … well … I found I was writing about my frustrations were which his … as well as a number of people I know:

====================

This site is borne of my frustration with explaining I am more than an advertising guy.

This site is borne of a belief that there is a community of advertising guys/gals who not only know they are more than advertising people but they also know they would like to use the skills they have in a business world which they see as needing what they have to offer.

This site is borne of what I know to be true – many of us are not simply advertising people, we are tinkers, tailors, soldiers & spies … all in one.

For some of us it gets frustrating to explain just because I have my MBA and am an experienced advertising guy that I am more than just that.

I get frustrated when my degree defines me.

I get frustrated when my industry experience label defines what my skills are.

I get frustrated that what I do, or have tangibly done, defines what I am capable of.

I get frustrated because I know how to ask the hard questions which often offer the hardest answers – the right things to do <which I believe businesses are desperate for this skill>.

I get frustrated because I know that “the truth is” is rarely the truth and I know that truths are often misty and multiple, like ghosts.

I get frustrated because I know all that I just wrote is a reflection of a thinking skill, a problem solving skill, a business skill and not just an advertising skill.

I get frustrated because I am more than an advertising guy and I know many people are frustrated by being slotted so simplistically.

To me, the world is too quick to define people and their skills in a simplistic way — simplistically by what they do <on the surface> and what specific skills they have acquired. People are often more complex than the labels they carry along with them and skills are often more translatable, with surprisingly positive outcomes, than many people are willing to think about.

It is our own fault because we have bludgeoned it into everyone’s head that everyone has to be a specialist or have some specific skill and, therefore, if you cannot simply define your specialty or skill you are … well … of less worth than someone who can.

That is, frankly, silly if not ludicrous.

Here is what I know.

I am more than an advertising guy. I am a tinker, tailor soldier and spy.

And I am building a community of likeminded people with a desire to go beyond simply being defined by the degree they earned and what labels people put on them to reach out into a business world, which may not know they need our skills at the moment, and show them there is a group of overlooked people who have skills to offer which businesses can benefit from.

============

tin·ker

ˈtiNGkər/

noun

noun: tinker; plural noun: tinkers

1.

(especially in former times) a person who travels from place to place mending metal utensils as a way of making a living.

a person who makes minor mechanical repairs, especially on a variety of appliances and apparatuses, usually for a living.

2.

an act of attempting to repair something.

tai·lor

ˈtālər/

noun

noun: tailor; plural noun: tailors

1.

a person whose occupation is making fitted clothes such as suits, pants, and jackets to fit individual customers.

Soldier

Noun

A soldier is one who fights as part of an organised, land based, sea based and air based armed force.

spy

spī/

noun

noun: spy; plural noun: spies

1.

a person who secretly collects and reports information on the activities, movements, and plans of an enemy or competitor.

=============

Sigh.

I am fairly sure I am not in the majority in that the bulk of the world tends to acquire specific skills but I do believe the majority of generalists get unfairly squeezed into some incredibly uncomfortable boxes simply because the world just doesn’t seem to believe a generalist has the same value as a specialist.

It is frustrating.

To be clear … a qualified generalist doesn’t claim to be able to do everything.

I am not qualified to be a CFO <although I understand what CFOs do and what they say>.

I am not qualified to be some social media strategist <although I understand what they do and what they say>.

I am not qualified to … well … you get the point.

But from a generalist perspective I am qualified to talk about effective marketing, advertising and communications in any industry <even if I have never worked specifically in that industry>.

But from a generalist perspective I am qualified to talk about effective company vision, objectives, strategies and how to grow sales & retention in any industry <even if I have never worked specifically in that industry>.

But from a generalist perspective I am qualified to talk about positioning products & services, behavioral economics and making the hard business decisions which guide businesses toward success in any industry <even if I have never worked specifically in that industry>.

But from a generalist perspective I am qualified to dabble in almost any topic in any industry on any issue and use that ‘dabbling’ to make some relevant points based on some seemingly disparate type knowledge.

===============

“You know about fixing cars, you’re athletic, and you know when to shut up.”